I was particularly taken by the reaction from the Department of Justice:

The Department of Defense has the authority to create and implement personnel policies it has determined are necessary to best defend our nation.

Note, just to be clear, that the Department of Defense did not, repeat double underline NOT, feel the need for this policy. Whether to best defend the nation or for any other reason (costs, perhaps?). Indeed, when the policy was imposed on them, DoD did everything they could to delay implementation. And even after this decision, DoD’s response was:

“As always, we treat all transgender persons with respect and dignity . . . The proposed policy is NOT a ban on service by transgender persons.”

Doesn’t exactly sound like military folks have a burning desire, let alone see a need, to keep transgender individuals out of the military.

Just for some personal context. I think empathy, the ability to put oneself in the other guy’s shoes, is a great thing. But it is possible to see that something is the right thing to do even without that. I’m very much a product of the society in which I grew up. (See my comments in the past on homosexuality and gay marriage.) Which is to say, that I really cannot wrap my head around anyone wanting to change gender. I realize, intellectually, that some people do – and must be pretty desperate to do so, considering what is involved in doing so. But I simply cannot relate to it. Even so, it doesn’t take being able to relate to these people to recognize that the policy is flat out stupid. Emotional, certainly, but not based on reality.

Comments

Re: understanding transgenderism - the penny dropped for me when someone said: don't imagine wanting to change into a girl; imagine *everyone else* insisting that you *are* a girl, to the point that you actually find yourself pretending to be a girl sometimes to make them happy and get them to leave you alone.

Also see my comments on that thread and remember when I had a sense of humor. Countme pretty much routed that thread like the Marx Brothers used to make chorus girls scatter just as the Director yelled "ACTION" for the musical number.

Should we ever bring back the draft, the only upside, as in none, I foresee to banning transgender citizens from military service is that conservatives like p, Dick Cheney, and Rush Limbaugh will once again be able to avoid being in harm's way by flunking their draft physicals and appearing in front of the Draft Board dressed in gown-less evening straps, lipstick and heels.

That was once a thing. I had a friend from high school who did that, though I think it was the pasties he was wearing that caused the attending physician to pop his stethoscope.

The entire subject has also confused lifeboat order and seating while on the high seas and who gets the parachutes and slide down the slide in the unlikely event of water landings by commercial aircraft.

The order used to be women and children (and the Beatles when they were on the manifest) first.

Now what?

Evidently accused molesters like Judge Kavanaugh are still accepted into the Marines with open arms, molestation being part of the mop-up operation after razing a foreign village.

When I first heard of the transgender phenomenon years ago I had an "ooh ick" reaction. That was my reaction when I first heard of homosexuality too. I think it is pretty common, even instinctive, for humans to react negatively to the unfamiliar, especially unfamiliar things as related to identity and one's understanding of humanness.

But here's where people diverge on a very fundamental level: some people can quickly adapt and expand their understanding of humaness and other have to reject those that challenge their understanding. (and there are people who eventually adapt but take longer.)

Guess which category corresponds most closely to liberals or conservatives.

I have friends who are Trump supporters. They are religious--they are involved in a daily way in what they see as the practice of Christianity. And that takes the form of giving to charities, being nice and polite in their relationships, being good parents and so on.

But when it come to politics, they are focused on using the political structure to protect themselves from having to adapt to people outside their training and experience. One lady posted on FB just yesterday a meme from Rush Limbuagh that America was going to be unrecognizable soon. She didn't says so, but its all those brown skinned black haired Spanish or Chechua speaking people...

They don't recognize something as normal, therefore it is bad.

Those boys who jeered at the Native man were showing the same behavior. As a former teacher, I am very aware that kids often react to the unfamiliar by jeering and mocking. They feel entitled to react that way. Part of growing up is to get over that sense of being entitled to marginalize the unfamiliar.

The Republican party has been exploiting that primitive base instinct for decades now, to the point that the R party really consists of nothing more than the desire by some people to marginalize everyone else for the sin of not being just like them.

SO yeah that's what the court packing ahs been about. A last ditch effort to subvert the Constitution so that the courts don't function as protection against that base instinct to demonize and marginalize the "Other"

But here's where people diverge on a very fundamental level: some people can quickly adapt and expand their understanding of humaness and other have to reject those that challenge their understanding. (and there are people who eventually adapt but take longer.)

Guess which category corresponds most closely to liberals or conservatives.

I think I'd agree that how readily people adapt probably correlates to liberal vs conservative. With the caveat that, if you were raised in a politically liberal enclave but are innately conservative, the "other" that you have trouble accepting can be political conservatives. ;-)

But I guess where I have a problem is on tolerance.** I have a similar "ooh ick" visceral reaction to homosexuality. And, as noted, have never really gotten over it. But I don't see that as an excuse for demonizing people. As I said, empathy is great, but it isn't the only route to tolerance. And tolerance is what I think we should strive for -- not the ideal (that would indeed be empathy), but something achievable.

** I'm sure I've told this story before, but.... One of my treasured memories is of the time (late 1980s probably) when one of my liberal friends was on a rant about what awful people conservatives were. Not quite up to one of the Counts more scathing pieces, but fairly rabid. When I broke in to point out that *I* was a conservative, and she got along fine with me, there was a pause and then she said "Oh, but you're a tolerant conservative!" Which shouldn't be a contradiction, but apparently was nearly unique in her experience.

Never mind your liberal friend's astonishment that you call yourself a conservative. What I'd like to know is whether any conservative you know has ever been astonished that you call yourself "conservative" :)

There's a great kid's book by Michael Hall called "Red", which can be seen as being about being transgender, and which really helped me partly understand what that must be like. It stars a blue crayon which is labelled 'red'. The crayon keeps trying to draw red things, and failing, and getting useless advice from other crayons (maybe if it presses harder? maybe its label is too tight? maybe it just needs to be sharpened?), and feeling worse and worse...until another crayon suggests that it try drawing an ocean. Oh! Now everything makes sense...

What I'd like to know is whether any conservative you know has ever been astonished that you call yourself "conservative" :)

Conservative friends? No astonishment.

But reactionaries of my acquaintance? Yes, they insist that I'm not a "conservative" . . . as they (and their ilk) have attempted to redefine the term. With, regrettably, some success, especially among the more liberal among us.

The problem, I think, is that we have lost track of the fact that
conservative != intolerant

It's pretty obvious why. One has only to look at the Old South bigots who remade the Republican Party in their own image during the latter half of the last century. (And are still working hard to keep it that way.) Their nostalgia was for a time when their bigotry was not only acceptable but expected and celebrated. But it doesn't, IMHO, have to be that way.

Perhaps you could flesh this thought snippet out for the peanut gallery.

(Incautiously) ask, and yet shall receive.

There are two quite distinct sets of views: conservative and reactionary.

Conservatives know that change is inevitable. And often, desirable. They seek to adapt in ways which preserve as much as possible of what is good ("works", if you prefer) in current economic and political systems/society/culture. Which generally, although not always, means incremental rather than wholesale changes. But does not mean rejecting change out of hand. And regularly involves good faith negotiations and compromises with those who want big changes.

Reactionaries, in contrast want NO change . . . except where change is to reverse changes since some (often mythical) past when things were wonderful. (For most of today's reactionaries, that is the early 1950s -- before Brown v Board of Education. Although there is a significant subset who prefer the 1850s.) They regard anyone who accepts, let alone approves, changes from that image as not just wrong but deliberately evil. And there can be no compromise with evil.

Today's reactionaries have appropriated the label "conservative." And today's liberals have connived in this, by insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is that kind of "conservative". Because, of course (IMHO), those reactionaries are far easier to demonize than real conservatives would be. And also, for the most liberal, it avoids having to compromise their (also imaginary to a significant extent) vision of a perfect future.

My first act will be to order NASA .... well, first, back to work with triple overtime pay ... and then to transport the ashes of the former disgraced traitorous tuber of a jagoff who shat all over America and his entire subhuman coterie of deplorables to the far side of Mars.

We'll soon set things right as we make room, clear a space if you will, in America for exceptional, but normal human beings from all over the globe as replacement citizens.

It's not obvious to me that it would be wrong to exclude people from the armed services because they have a minor but inconvenient medical condition. A peanut allergy, for example.

At the moment, we are finding it sufficiently challenging to recruit enough good people into the military that we are willing to not exclude, among others
a) people who have a criminal record,
b) people who are not US citizens. (Indeed, the possibility of becoming a US citizen is used in recruiting them.**)